The Washington Wars

The Washington Wars

April 3, 2003

Ready to fight back?

Sign up for Take Action Now and get three actions in your inbox every week.

You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Subscribe now for as little as $2 a month!

Support Progressive Journalism

The Nation is reader supported: Chip in $10 or more to help us continue to write about the issues that matter.

Fight Back!

Sign up for Take Action Now and we’ll send you three meaningful actions you can take each week.

You will receive occasional promotional offers for programs that support The Nation’s journalism. You can read our Privacy Policy here.

Thank you for signing up. For more from The Nation, check out our latest issue.

Travel With The Nation

Be the first to hear about Nation Travels destinations, and explore the world with kindred spirits.

Sign up for our Wine Club today.

Did you know you can support The Nation by drinking wine?

By the start of the third week of war, Bush was bogged down in Mesopotamia and Washington. The war did not open as well as had been predicted by prominent hawks, including Vice President Cheney. It appeared possible that George W. Bush’s invasion could turn into a long-haul endeavor (good news for North Korea). Then again, a tipping point could be reached, and yesterday’s morass could rapidly transform into military triumph, as happened in Afghanistan. The political implications of either scenario are impossible to predict. A quick win might be forgotten (cf. Bush I) or much appreciated by the voting public. A difficult but lengthy war might lead to political upheaval, or it could strengthen the bond between the President and portions of the public. In any event, the initial stall did not cost Bush much political capital, for in Washington there has been little politicking on the war.

Democrats haven’t said much about its course. Few members of Congress have joined the debate over whether the initial Bush-Rumsfeld-Franks war plan was sufficient. Few have weighed in on important and contentious matters related to the coming occupation (presuming the war is won). Television bookers report that they have difficulty rounding up D guests. Antiwar Democratic presidential candidates–most notably former Vermont Governor Howard Dean and Representative Dennis Kucinich–have decried the invasion. But many Democrats have taken up residence in Cheney’s undisclosed location. Senator Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat who supports the war, complained that the White House is stonewalling Congressional requests for information on the cost and duration of the war. And Democrats and Republicans have grumbled about Bush’s attempt to spend $75 billion in emergency war funding–aka “the down payment”–as he sees fit. But these are mere skirmishes. “People are waiting to see what happens,” says a Democratic senator. “I think the shit’s going to hit the fan [with the war]. But it’s too early to come out and say that.”

Untroubled on the war by the Democrats, Bush has seen sand clog the gears of his programs closer to home. In recent weeks, with the help of moderate Republicans, Senate Democrats won votes halving Bush’s new round of tax cuts to $350 billion and defeating his attempt to open a stretch of the Alaska wilderness to oil development. The Democrats sustained a filibuster against appeals court nominee Miguel Estrada. Bush’s faith-based initiative has lost steam. His push for legislation limiting jury awards was derailed. Bush has also been drawn into a tussle with Congressional Democrats over how much money to spend on homeland security. Representative David Obey, the ranking Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, introduced a $12.3 billion package, three times the amount Bush requested. While Bush appears ready to go eyeball-to-eyeball with Democrats over protecting the country, Congressional Republicans, who don’t want to be accused of being cheapskates, are worried about being caught in the middle.

At the beginning of the year, Bush went on the offensive, proposing a new round of budget-busting tax cuts, returning defeated conservative judicial nominations to the Senate while all but promising a war in Iraq. “It’s now hard to see much movement with his domestic agenda,” says a senior Senate Republican aide. “All the Administration’s energies are concentrated on war.” And in the midst of war, the White House was unable to convince a handful of moderate Senate Republicans to stick with their President on tax cuts. “His proposal to abolish the dividend tax was a complete miscalculation,” the aide says. “There’s not a lot of stomach politically for tax cuts in a time of war, much less ones skewed toward the wealthy. The $3 trillion deficit is concerning even Republicans. Supply-siders have lost significant traction.”

Bush’s in-your-face initiatives managed to unite Senate Democrats–something their leaders often fail to do. Judicial filibusters tend to be tough to maintain, but Democrats’ anger at the White House refusal to release information related to the Estrada nomination held them together. And though the Dems lost the first vote on Bush’s tax cuts because several Democrats opposed to all cuts wouldn’t vote even for a smaller package of cuts, they were able to regroup to deliver Bush a loss.

But blocking a popular wartime President is not the same as gaining ground. Bush is still poised to add tax cuts to his 2001 bundle. His other resurrected judicial nominees–as conservative, if not more so, as Estrada–are likely to be approved. By being audacious, Bush managed to shift the discourse so in his favor that even a partial win is a substantial policy victory. (In Iraq, he can’t use this strategy.) And there’s no evidence yet that the Democrats can score points against Bush with accusations that he’s underfunding homeland security and engaging in fiscal recklessness. “This country is laying off teachers, while Bush is cutting taxes and fighting wars,” a Democratic House member says. “If we can’t make this message obvious, something’s wrong with Democrats.”

The war will end up shaping, if not completely determining, Bush’s standing and influence as a President. But for now it’s been accompanied by a political paralysis of sorts. Which is not such a bad thing in George Bush’s Washington.

David CornDavid Corn is Mother Jones' Washington bureau chief. Until 2007, he was Washington editor of The Nation.
He has written for the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, Boston Globe, Newsday, Harper's, The New Republic, Mother Jones, Washington Monthly, LA Weekly, the Village Voice, Slate, Salon, TomPaine.com, Alternet, and many other publications.
He is the co-author (with Michael Isikoff) of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin, Scandal, and the Selling of the Iraq War (Crown, 2006).
His book, The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception (Crown, 2003) was a New York Times bestseller. The Los Angeles Times said, "David Corn's The Lies of George W. Bush is as hard-hitting an attack as has been leveled against the current president. The Washington Post called it "a fierce polemic...a serious case....[that] ought to be in voters' minds when they cast their ballots. A painstaking indictment."
His first novel, Deep Background, a political thriller, was published by St. Martin's Press in 1999. The Washington Post said it is "brimming with gusto....As clean and steely as an icy Pinot Grigio....[An] exceptional thriller." The Los Angeles Times called it "a slaughterhouse scorcher of a book you don't want to put down" and named it one of the best novels of the year. The New York Times said, "You can either read now or wait to see the movie....Crowded with fictional twists and revelations." The Chicago Tribune noted, "This dark, impressive political thriller...is a top-notch piece of fiction, thoughtful and compelling." PBS anchor Jim Lehrer observed that Deep Background is "a Washington novel with everything. It's a page-turning thriller from first word to last...that brings some of the worst parts of Washington vividly alive."
Corn was a contributor to Unusual Suspects, an anthology of mystery and crime fiction (Vintage/Black Lizard, 1996). His short story "My Murder" was nominated for a 1997 Edgar Allan Poe Award by the Mystery Writers of America. The story was republished in The Year's 25 Finest Crime and Mystery Stories (Carroll & Graf, 1997).
He is the author of the biography Blond Ghost: Ted Shackley and the CIA's Crusades (Simon & Schuster, 1994). The Washington Monthly called Blond Ghost "an amazing compendium of CIA fact and lore." The Washington Post noted that this biography "deserves a space on that small shelf of worthwhile books about the agency." The New York Times termed it "a scorchingly critical account of an enigmatic figure who for two decades ran some of the agency's most important, and most controversial, covert operations."
Corn has long been a commentator on television and radio. He is a regular panelist on the weekly television show, Eye On Washington. He has appeared on The O'Reilly Factor, Hannity and Colmes, On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, Crossfire, The Capital Gang, Fox News Sunday, Washington Week in Review, The McLaughlin Group, Hardball, C-SPAN's Washington Journal, and many other shows. He is a regular on NPR's The Diane Rehm Show and To The Point and has contributed commentary to NPR, BBC Radio, and CBC Radio. He has been a guest on scores of call-in radio programs.
Corn is a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Brown University.